KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: The Judge’s adverse conclusion under Guideline B are sustainable given his findings
regarding Applicant’s close tie to family members in Morocco.  Adverse decision affirmed,
CASENO: 06-25979.a1
DATE: 04/16/2008
DATE: April 16, 2008
In Re:
--------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-25979
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
James E. Corl, Jr., Esq.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On February 28,  2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
2
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant
requested a hearing.  On November 30, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Henry Lazzaro
denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to
Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings were
not based upon substantial record evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding no error, we affirm.
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact:   Applicant was born in Morocco
and was solely a Moroccan citizen until she became a naturalized United States citizen in 2004.  She
also obtained a United States passport in June 2004.   
Applicant has  held an interim security clearance for approximately 18 months, after being
hired by her employer without any adverse information being reported.  Applicant’s character
witnesses, consisting of supervisors and co-workers, consider her to be dependable, professional,
diligent, conscientious, detail oriented, and very security conscious. 
Applicant met her husband, a dual U.S. and Moroccan citizen, while he was visiting in
Morocco in the late 1990s.  They were married in Morocco.  They have two children.  Although
Applicant testified she considers her children to be solely U.S. citizens, GE 4 indicates that children
born to Moroccan fathers are considered by Moroccan law to be citizens of Morocco.  Applicant’s
husband immigrated to the U.S. sometime in the 1990s after marrying his cousin who was a U.S.
citizen.  He became a U.S. citizen about nine years ago.  Applicant completed her education in
Morocco.  She has worked for her present employer since 2005. 
Applicant’s parents are citizens and residents of Morocco.  Her father is a retired clerk and
her mother has never worked outside the home.  They subsist on a pension her father receives, the
income from a small business he operates, the $600-700 Applicant sends them annually, and on
additional financial assistance provided by her siblings.  Applicant has weekly to bi-weekly
telephone contact with her parents and with her sibling who resides with them.  The only asset of any
value owned by her parents is the house in which they live.  Applicant estimated she will inherit
about $5,000 as her share of that house when her parents die. 
Applicant has a brother who is a career officer in the Moroccan armed forces.   Applicant has
additional siblings  who are citizens and residents of Morocco.  A brother resides in Spain.  Her
brothers who reside in Morocco are all employed.  The brother who resides in Spain formerly did
home repair work but was unemployed as of the date of the hearing.  One of her siblings resides with
and cares for Applicant’s elderly parents.  With the exception of the sibling who resides with her
parents, Applicant has sporadic telephone and/or e-mail contact with her other siblings about once
every other month. 
3
Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in law are also citizens and residents of Morocco.  They
are retired and divorced.  Her mother-in-law never worked outside the home and presently is
supported by a child who lives with her and her other children who reside in Spain.  Applicant’s
father-in-law is retired from a foreign military service other than the Moroccan military.  
In addition to the time she resided in Morocco to complete her education, Applicant visited
there three times since emigrating to the U.S.  Other than the trip to complete her schooling,
Applicant’s travels to Morocco were solely for the purpose of visiting relatives. 
Applicant and her husband own a house in the U.S.  She testified the house is not mortgaged
and is valued at between $30,000 and $40,000.  Her salary is $62,000 annually.  She has money
withheld from her pay that is deposited in an educational account for the benefit of her children when
they reach age 18.  The only thing Applicant owns in Morocco is a small savings account for her use
when she travels there and which currently has about a $200 balance. 
Morocco is a constitutional monarchy with long-standing ties to the U.S.  It is viewed as
stable and democratizing.  Terrorist activity has occurred there in recent years.  Additionally, there
have been reports of arbitrary arrests; restrictions on freedom of speech, press, etc; lack of judicial
independence, and police misconduct.
In the Conclusions section of his decision, the Judge noted, inter alia, Applicant’s close ties
to her family members and in-laws in Morocco, the dual-citizenship status of her husband, and the
above-mentioned terrorist activity that has occurred in that country.  The Judge stated that the
evidence which Applicant presented was not sufficient to overcome the Guideline B security
concerns which her case raised.  See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9  Cir. 1990), cert.th
denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). (Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance
eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance);
Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  (After the government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden
shifts to the applicant to establish any appropriate mitigating conditions.)   “The general standard is
that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national
security.’”  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).   
Applicant’s submission on appeal contains new evidence, which the  Board cannot consider.
See Directive ¶ E3.1.29 (“No new evidence shall be received or considered by the Appeal Board.”)
See also  ISCR Case No. 06-22871 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 24, 2008); ISCR Case No. 06-17209 at 2
(App. Bd. Nov. 14, 2007).  The Board gives due consideration to the Hearing Office cases which
Applicant has cited in her appeal brief.  However, such decisions are not binding on Hearing Office
Judges or on the Board.  ISCR Case No. 06-16704 at 2 (App. Bd. Jan. 30, 2008).  
Applicant challenges several of the Judge’s findings of fact.  However, any errors in the
Judge’s findings are harmless in that they have not affected the outcome of the case.  “There is ample
support in the record for the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision.”  ISCR Case. No. 04-09353
at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2007).  
4
The Board concludes the Judge has drawn “a rational connection between the facts found”
and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision.  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v.
United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  Accordingly the Judge’s decision is not arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.  
     Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan         
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields            
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board